Although Thomas
has never been charged with any offence in relation to the Strangeways gun
incident, it has blighted his time in prison.For many years of his sentence he has
been held under the highest security.This means, in effect, that the authorities believe him to pose a risk
of escape from ‘armed external’ elements.

At the directions hearing on 24th
April 2007 at the Royal Courts of Justice, Lord Justice Moses raised security
issues surrounding Thomas’s appearance at his forthcoming leave to appeal
hearing with the prosecutor, Mr Bentham QC.

This is a moot point because one of the
prime points to be raised at the Appeal was the prejudicial effect that the
increased security had at the original trial.

The original prosecutor, Sir Peter Openshaw, had given an affidavit for this Appeal that there
had been no increase in security at trial following the gun find in
Strangeways.(see Sir Peter Openshaws Statement.)

Lord Justice Moses, however, ruled that the hearing
would have to take place at The Old Bailey – due to the need for high
security.So the Strangeways
gun came to haunt Thomas’s Appeal as it had his Trial - despite the fact
that he has never been charged in relation to this incident.

During the directions hearing, Lord Justice Moses
was sat with a box on his bench.Towards the end of the hearing, he spoke to Prosecuting Counsel, Mr
Bentham, concerning the contents of the box.Neither Mr Bentham nor anyone else in
the court had any idea as to what he was referring.

Lord Justice Moses mentioned that the contents
were unintelligible but said that it is all to do with a corrupt police officer
Dalziel, who illegally obtained the home address of Alan
Singleton, one of the murder victims, from his car number plate.This was carried out by Dalziel on behalf of David Watson, the director of Chestergate Autos, some weeks before the murders.The defence did not know about this fact
until after the trial – and the jury never heard evidence in respect of Dalziel, Watson or their conspiracy against Alan
Singleton.

To this day the defence counsel has not
been permitted to view the contents of this box.At the time of the murders and the trial
in 1993-1994 there was full disclosure of evidence against a defendant.All miscarriages of justice seem to
occur when prosecutors conceal evidence pointing to other suspects.

Lord Justice Moses told Thomas's QC, Mr Patrick Cosgrove to bring
whatever material he wished to the leave to appeal hearing to substantiate the
defence’s claim that there was an increase in security at the end of
Thomas’ trial.In this
the family were hindered by the fact that the CPS and police were saying that
no deployment records for the armed police were available.In fact the acting court manager claimed
that “it would be extremely rare in
1994 and around that period, to have in place the level of security referred to
in the Notice of Appeal”.

Fortunately by the time of the leave to
appeal hearing in October, the family had managed to locate archived television
news footage showing the armed police. They also made contact with a reporter
who covered the television news at the time of the trial and he remembered the
security and also saw snipers on the roofs.

Without this proof, Sir Peter Openshaw’s word would most certainly have been taken over
that of Thomas and his family.The
tapes of the footage of the armed police escort after the gun had been found
were played to the appeal court judges.They saw that the van carrying Thomas had clear glass windows through
which he was clearly visible, unlike the van used to transport him before the
gun turned up which had obscured, high level darkened windows.Although Lord Justice Moses conceded that the jury
might well have seen the police with their guns, he rejected the proposition
that they would connect this significantincrease
in the security surrounding Thomas to media revelations about the finding of
the gun in Strangeways over the weekend.

Like Thomas’s family that Monday
morning, who clearly remember a huge armed police presence, the members of the
jury would have made their own way to court as they were not sequestered until
the Monday afternoon.

True it is that there had and not been heightened security before that final day, but we find it quite impossible to accept that the jury might have been influenced, even if it be assumed that they observed an armed police officer accompanying the van which it would also have to be assumed they knew was carrying this applicant.
Still less do we think there is any substance in the belief that they would
have attributed the security to the finding of the gun in the prison and then noticed the newspaper
reports and read them in such a way as to link this applicant with the finding of the gun. There was nothing in any television report or in the newspapers which mentioned this applicant.The highest it was put was that it might have related to a man on remand.We think the links are far too remote to
establish any risk of there being prejudice to the applicant.

A leading QC described Lord Justice
Moses’ ruling a ‘whitewash’ and ‘an intellectually
dishonest finding’.Moses
completely disregarded the fact that there
was not one armed police officer but in fact several armed police officers and outriders on motorbikes.In addition there were snipers on
rooftops on the route from the prison to the court.

The press and broadcast media reports
were overtly linking the gun to a remand prisoner “who planned to use the
gun to break out if he was convicted and given a long sentence”.It is clear on the evidence that the
jury would be aware of the raised security and
the media storm over the gun.The risk of prejudice is palpable.

The contrast
between security during the trial, and that on the day when they retired would
not only have been noticeable – it would have been frightening. It would
have been an especially phlegmatic juror not to believe that they were being
protected from well organised, malevolent forces.

Furthermore a radio journalist, who was
one of the independent witnesses at the trial and who also came to give
evidence for the defence at the appeal hearing, said that at the time of the
trial all the people in his office were telling him that he ought to be
careful.They knew that he had
given evidence, albeit positive for Thomas had his defence been properly
conducted, and from the various media reports they all connected this gun to
Thomas Bourke.Anyone who took an
interest in the local news would have made this connection.

The radio journalist repeated this fact
before the judges at the leave to appeal hearing, but they chose to ignore it
and Lord Justice Moses made no mention of it in his judgement
even though it corroborated the fact that the jury might well have reached the
same conclusion.

Lord Justice Moses said that he would only accept
the point as a ground of appeal if it could be proven that it did influence the
jury.At this moment in time it is
difficult to prove this as no effort to speak to the jury has ever been made.

However, during the November 2008 trial of the drug dealers John Haase and Paul Bennett (see Post Trial), it was revealed that Thomas DID in fact have a protected jury.

All attempts by
Thomas’ team to discover documentation relating to security at the court
was blocked by bureaucratic indifference:

There
is no reference to any secret meeting or indeed any meeting between Peter Openshaw QC and Mr Justice Sachs – although this is now a
known fact.

There
is no reference in the log to an increase in security after the Strangeways’s gun turned up.

There
were no special arrangements for the jury according to this log.Why therefore were they sent to two
separate hotels on two successive nights and why is this fact not logged? See the acting Clerk
of the Court, Mrs Bergin's statement
in answer to this question.

On
the morning of the directions hearing, it was served upon the defence that
the Recorder of Preston, Anthony Russell (Openshaw’s
junior at the time of the trial), would not make a statement in support of
Openshaw’s recollections of there being no
increase in security, stating the “passage of time” as his reason.However the following month when he
was asked about his recollections of covert recordings, he stated, “I have taken the opportunity of
discussing with Mr Openshaw the question of
whether there were any PII applications in relation to covert recordings
of Thomas Bourke’s dealings with his solicitors.Both our recollections are we were
never informed of any covert recordings of Thomas Bourke and his
solicitor.We are sure that if
such a recording had been brought to our attention, we would have remembered
it because it would be so obviously important and highly sensitive”.

Boxes of court papers relating to Thomas's original trial have disappeared from the court without any explanation.

We believe
that Thomas being mentioned as being responsible for a gun in Strangeways at a
crucial part of his trial is far more memorable than covert recordings.We are sure that Mr Russell would have
spoken to Mr Openshaw regarding their memories of
this event as well.This surely
demonstrates the selective nature of the memories of both these eminent men.

In his Judgement,
Lord Justice Moses accepted the fact that the two drug barons, John Haase and Paul Bennett, with the connivance of their Customs handler, Paul Cook,interfered in Thomas’s trial process by having the gun
planted in HMP Manchester (Strangeways).He accepted that they did this with the sole intention of destroying the
integrity of Thomas’s trial so they could gain credit with the
authorities in a bid to secure themselves the Royal Prerogative of Mercy and
thus an early release from prison.Indeed the conniving Customs Officer described Thomas’s conviction
at trial as a “spectacular result
for the boys”.See Post Trial.

We now know
from the Manchester solicitor’s gist of 1997 in connection with another
trial, that this tactic of the police and other government agencies putting up
criminals to interfere in others’ trials was prevalent in Manchester
between 1993 and 1997.It is
possible that if Lord Justice Moses had been aware of this, he may have ruled
differently.That said, having
accepted that two drug barons and a Customs Officer conspired together to
sabotage Thomas’s trial, the only just and logical decision was to quash
the conviction.The fact that he
chose not to has led to independent observers in the legal profession calling
this part of his Judgement one of the ‘most perverse’
decisions the Court of Appeal has reached in recent times.They called it a ‘Cheater’s
Charter’.

This decision by these judges means
that it is acceptable for anyone, be they Customs officials, Customs
informers, participating informants or, by definition, any criminal or agent of
the state, to interfere in the trial process with impunity.

Their Lordships turned a blind eye to the
fact that agents of the State conspired with criminals to interfere directly
with the judicial process.The
ultimate end of their complicity was, in essence, to nobble the jury and send
an innocent man to jail.With this
judgement anyone’s right to a fair trial in this country no longer
exists.

We have been advised that we cannot go
to the House of Lords as it is not a Public Interest point of law.We beg to differ and hope anybody
reading this site will support us in our view.

The second point of appeal concerned a
red Ford Sierra, which was linked to the murders.A man acting suspiciously in a red Ford
Sierra was seen by a number of independent witnesses in the car park adjacent
to the crime scene inside Chestergate Motors.

In fact, on the day in question, this
car was only ever independently linked to McGahey
– and it was only recovered after the police arrested him.

After Thomas’s conviction, TV
Producer Bob Duffield uncovered new evidence in relation to sightings of a red
Ford Sierra in the car park at Chestergate.Shortly before the killings, two
passers-by were called across to lift the back of a red Sierra, which was stuck
over a small wall.Both
witnesses said that police officers later took their palm prints –
presumably to see if there was a match on the recovered red Sierra – F340
PTM.In fact the police returned to
take further prints a second time, although no statements about this line of
enquiry were ever disclosed to the Defence.

Behind the scenes, police instructions
to show the red Sierra hatchback F340 PTM to these witnesses were unexpectedly
withdrawn.The reason for
this is now clear.When Bob
Duffield showed them a photograph of the hatchback, they both immediately said
this was not the car they lifted in
Chestergate car park.The one they
lifted was a red Ford Sierra Sapphire – which is not a hatchback. It is a saloon car with a boot.

The true significance of this can only
be understood in the context of two glaring pieces of negative forensic
evidence concerning the recovered red Sierra hatchback.

·There were no gunshot residues inside the car –
although the recently discharged shotgun was “seen” on the front
passenger seat

·Distinct black tyre marks on the workshop floor did not
match the tyres of the hatchback – although it was “seen”
wheel-spinning in a hasty exit.

Bob Duffield established that there was
independent evidence to show that the red hatchback F340 PTM could not have been the red Sierra seen
in Chestergate car park.By
analysing contradictions in the evidence given by McGahey
– and timed sightings of F340 PTM by independent witnesses – it was
clear that there must have been
another red Ford Sierra in the car park.

In this context the presence of a red
Ford Sapphire, confirmed by the helpful passers-by, is significant in many
interlocking ways:

Their Lordships rejected this ground by
relying on the unreliable and mendacious evidence of McGahey
and others:

“Mr Cosgrove QC says that it would
have been powerful ammunition for the defence to deploy before the jury the
knowledge that there was another red Sierra in the vicinity.That would have helped explain why there
was no forensic material to link the shooting or this applicant with the other
red Sierra and might have suggested that the car associated with this applicant
through the evidence ofthe Wains
was not the car from which the murderer emerged. We find this suggestion wholly
fanciful.The knowledge that there
was a second red Sierra in the vicinity cannot, in our view, possibly have helped this applicant.”

In his research Bob Duffield listed
numerous Police Actions linked to sightings of red Sierras in the wake of the
murders that had been redacted or totally blanked out.All requests to review these Actions
have been rejected.

In particular, we would be interested
to see if there is a record on file of a burned out Ford Sierra Sapphire being
found during the course of the murder investigation.

The third point concerned the genuinely
independent witness, the radio journalist, who saw the driver of the red sierra
emerging from Chestergate Motors and said that it was
not Thomas.

This ground was not accepted because
Lord Justice Moses said that his evidence was not strong enough.It should be noted that this witness was
certain that the man in the car was not Thomas.Just after the murders, when his memory
was fresh, he reported this fact to DI Richardson (see conduct), a fact that Richardson does not
dispute even though he failed to report it.Had this fact been passed to the
defence, the witness would have become a witness for the defence and his
information would probably have resulted in an acquittal for Thomas.

The fourth and last point concerned the
police illegally taping legal visits between Thomas and his legal team prior to
the trial in 1994.

In his Judgement,
Lord Justice Moses said that any such tape is unlikely to see the light of day.He made no reference to the fact that after the appeal was lodged, Greater Manchester Police destroyed several
items of evidence, including four unmarked cassette tapes.

We only received the list of the
destroyed items on 18th October 2007, the morning of the leave to
appeal hearing.We are unsure if
Lord Justice Moses saw this list.If he did,
we cannot understand why he made no mention of this fact.(seetaping)

Thomas was not granted leave to
appeal.He was not even granted an
extension of time for leave to appeal.In his Judgement, Lord Justice Moses
states, “….quite apart from
the merits we would have found no basis whatever for extending the time in
bringing this appeal to so long a period.In those circumstances, we refuse the extension of time and these
applications are dismissed”.